The Illusionist

I'm going to do another larger post on Animation as a whole triggered by this film but first things first.

Sylvain Chomet is an animation God, so fluid and so absurdly detailed. I wish I had the talent to draw just a single frame in this film. I study animation for my A-level art project so I think it helped see just another level of pain and effort in every second; it nearly reduced me to tears in the first few minutes. Once I got used to how incredible the animation was the story kicked in and it is relentlessly cynical, maybe I have some sort of prejudice towards animation but the fact that it was so soul crushingly depressing unnerved me a bit. There was a complete absence of closeups and tracking shots, Chomet likes his movement to flow without any distraction. The single 3-D show was completely out of place and didn't belong in the painstaking hand made process.

Watching incredible artists is so soul-crushing, morale-shattering, motivation-breaking and utterly depressing but in the end it's so worth it.

Dune

This film was pretty much a summary of events that happened in the book but the amount of stuff it covered didn't leave it enough time to talk about any of the substance behind it. I feel for Lynch though because the story was so tightly woven that altering it would make it collapse under it's own weight. The entire second half of the book was reduced to a montage in the film. Visually the film was perfect for Lynch but you can really see that the technology held him back. Now, I have read the book so it acted as a sort of guide book when watching the film. For someone who hasn't I can imagine the film would be utterly baffling.

I'm listening to: Another Diamond Day by Vashti Bunyan

I'm Still Here

I'm going to say that this film was really confused with it's message. If it was trying to paint a picture of a society obsessed with celebrity why pick such an asshole to use as an example, why make the film a comedy, people were just treating it as a 1 and a half hour Letterman defeating the point of the satire. Why show other celebrities that are shown to be absolutely capable of dealing with the situation they're in and making use of their celebrity status for a good cause? I had no idea what to think whilst the film was playing was I meant to cry or laugh, it just ended up with me sitting there confused. As an added point this film was really artlessly put together with a pretentious editor.

I'm listening to: The Girl in Byakkoya by Susumu Hirasawa

L.A. Confidential

I didn't like it, now this might shock people by the fact I have my own opinion but I generally don't like films that are this absurdly polished. I can appreciate the level of skill involved in making it but it didn't really have anything valuable to say it seemed just to be begging for oscars. I have never been able to like a film solely for the the performance of an actor, apart from a few notable exceptions. Everyone seemed to speak to each-other in one-liners which I find a really odd cinema convention. It felt like it needed to please everyone with its mixture of humour, the action shot out and the female exploitation. I dunno it just doesn't appeal to me.

I'm listening to: Waterloo Sunset by The Kinks

I'm reading: Atlas Shrugged

π

Films about maths are tricky because most of the maths involved is really dull. So the challenge the director faces is making a film about maths without any maths in it, this usually gives a feeling of detachment like an advert that has nothing to do with what it is advertising. Things got a little less compelling with the increasingly frequent and lengthy 'I'm going mad scenes', I mean they get their point across really quickly but they span like 5 minutes. The high contrast black and white was also super-awesome.

Role Models

Role Models: The true test of any comedy is if it makes people laugh and it that sense Role Models scores very high marks because it was genuinely hysterical. Comedy often loses it's humour according to time so the challenge is in making something timeless and in that sense Role Models will be forgotten in a few years. I liked the fact that it showed the 'nerd world' in such a good light, I defy anyone who says LARPing doesn't look ridiculously fun. I also feel sorry for the actor who played McLovin because that will forever be his label. Did the movie have anything valuable to say? No. Did it want to say anything? No.

I'm currently listening to: Bombay - El Guincho

Reading: Kafka's Metamorphosis

Stolen from Bro'

This is a note my brother wrote and I found it really interesting so I'm stealing it:

 I understand the logic behind Free Market Ideology. Although I am far from being an apologist for capitalism, it makes sense to me that business should prosper in a competitive environment – striving as it does to produce goods/services of low cost and high quality – and that the consumer, acting as judge in deciding upon which goods/services to spend his/her money, benefits as a direct consequence of this. The profit-motive, in modern society, is what drives organizations to improve efficiency, increase quality and drive down costs, and its effectiveness in doing so results in better quality of life and more freedom of choice.

 

I do not, however, accept the premise that all human activity is and should be motivated by profit, especially given that the profit-motive has a tendency to degenerate into greed. Even the most ardent capitalists are willing to make certain exceptions in their quest for a Free Market. How, for example, can healthcare be reconciled with this model? No cost-reducing measures should ever affect the quality of healthcare, nor should those unable to pay the maximum (in insurance premiums or tax) ever be subjected to anything less than their more wealthy counterparts.

 

In the pre-Obama era in the United States, people who had paid health insurance premiums, consistently and over a long period of time, were victim to a series of legal ‘tricks’ designed by health-insurance companies to minimize their costs and increase their profits (i.e. those refused coverage on account of ‘pre-existing conditions’). The health of our fellow human beings was at risk because of Free Market Ideology.

 

And to be frank, I think there are few among us who would deny that, in such cases, human beings are and should be motivated by ideals other than self-improvement. Certain universal services are funded by high-earning taxpayers, not because it is in their interest but because their culture and the society in which they live make certain moral demands of them which, even if they want to, they cannot ignore.

 

I am not writing to argue in favour of a set of universal services; this has been done already by people far more competent than I am. I am looking to increase the profile of capitalist abuse in another area entirely unsuited to Free Market Ideology: charity. More than anything else, people’s willingness to donate money to those less fortunate than they are is evidence that compassion and empathy, among others, are human characteristics that fly in the face of self-interest, and are therefore anomalies in the capitalist Free Market model.

 

At this point, I must draw attention to one caveat. Those who believe that charitable donors are paying for a ‘service’ that alleviates their conscience can stop reading here. The assumption has its own internal logic, but it could only be promoted by a cold-hearted cynic and the type of person for whom I have no time.

 

Those, on the other hand, who believe that the vast majority of the world’s population have a significant selfless streak within them must agree that our charitable instincts are admirable, and must be preserved and protected. These are the traits that make us human – these are the feelings that make life worth living – these are the ideals to which we would like our children to aspire. They are and have always been in direct conflict with the self-seeking forces of capitalist enterprise. Do I keep £10 to improve my life even further, or do I donate it to someone who needs it more than I do?

 

So let us separate charity and NGO work, once and for all, from the capitalist machine. The personal generosity of one individual should never translate into another’s extreme wealth. Nobody should be allowed to take advantage – as a capitalist would, for personal gain – of the charitable instincts of the human population. Those instincts should be harnessed only and entirely for the sake of the poor, the vulnerable, the sick, the disadvantaged and those who genuinely need help.

 

Take (RED), for example. (RED) is a brand which is marketed to corporations including Apple, Armani, Gap, Converse, Dell, Hallmark, Microsoft, American Express, and Starbucks, as a means by which they can make themselves even more wealthy than they already are. When the (RED) brand is attached to a product, it makes the product more desirable and so increases demand for that product. This is achieved by publicizing the fact that 50% of the profits for each product sold will be donated to charity.

 

So, in one possible scenario, Gap pays a sizeable fee to (RED), whose shareholders and employees consequently become wealthier. A consumer buys a (RED) product from Gap for £120 which he/she would not otherwise have bought, motivated mainly by a sincere wish to improve the livelihoods of those suffering from HIV/AIDS in Africa. The product cost £50 to produce, so Gap find themselves £35 better off and – as a spin-off of this transaction – £35 is donated to The Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

 

It is true that The Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria is enabled, through this process, to do incredible work for those affected by disease in disadvantaged parts of the world. It is true, also, that this is a direct result of the charitable instincts of the consumer who bought the GAP product in the first place. Is it really so different from a direct donation?

 

Under the circumstances, it is, because the shareholders and employees of both Gap and (RED) have increased their personal wealth in this transaction, and they have done so by abusing the charitable instincts of the consumer.

 

Let us, for the sake of argument, consider an alternative scenario, where the consumer spends £55 on a non-(RED) equivalent product at another store and donates £35 directly to The Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria. In this scenario, the NGO has received just as much as it would have done under the (RED) scheme, but the consumer has saved £30, some of which may subsequently be donated to charity.

 

Gap is a company that makes profits from commercial activities, and in the extent to which it is able to do so fairly, by producing quality products at reasonable costs, it is welcome to all the profits it receives. It should not, however, be receiving funds from a consumer whose priorities, with regard to clothing, did not necessarily lie in the purchase of a Gap product. If it does so, it is essentially using poverty and disease as a marketing tool. The consumer has no idea what percentage of his money will finally be directed to the charitable cause. There is no transparency.

 

Another brief example, which makes my blood boil, is that of NGO employees in developing countries. I worked for an NGO in Africa that was funded by the U.S. taxpayer and essentially functioned as a consultancy firm: providing advisory services to rural entrepreneurs for free. The model was a good one, but the allocation of charitable donations was appalling.

 

The company’s consultants were among the most educated, entrepreneurial and successful individuals in the country in question, and some of them were paid six-figure sums, annually, in U.S. dollars. They were not allowed to involve themselves in business directly, as this would have been interpreted as a conflict of interests. Instead, they became ‘consultants’, advising people less capable than they were, to do things they would have been more qualified to do themselves.

 

It is no secret that a career in the NGO sector is considered by many in the developing world, especially Africa, as unparalleled insofar as salaries and career development are concerned. It is also acknowledged by many specialists that these NGOs compete unfairly with the private sector by offering phenomenal salaries drawn from the comparatively boundless resources of the developed world, to the detriment of young businesses and entrepreneurial initiatives in the developing world.

 

Not only is there a ‘brain-drain’ in the relevant countries – whereby talented individuals are taken out of the supposedly ‘free’ job market – but talent is also harnessed for ends that are not necessarily compatible with the business interests  of the economy at large. By ill-advisedly hauling the profit-motive – a private-sector tool – into the NGO sector, business suffers a brain-drain and is also subject to increased interference from entities that are ideologically motivated, as all NGOs are.

 

In short, if an individual wants to work for an organization that owes its existence to the selflessness of charitable donors, he/she should align his/her own objectives accordingly. Money and individual gain should not be motives. Salaries should be sufficiently generous to allow that individual to live a dignified life, free of the constraints of poverty, but not excessive.

 

On the other hand, if the individual is motivated by self-interest and the prospect of wealth, prosperity, luxury, social status and the like, he/she should use his/her ambitions to promote business and entrepreneurialism in his/her country. He/she will be doing as much, if not more, for the economic development of poor nations as any well-intentioned NGO.

 

I believe that it is possible to extrapolate, from these examples, that seeking to improve one’s life, beyond a basic and dignified standard of living, by making profits directly or indirectly derived from charity, is to take unfair advantage of human generosity and/or human misery. There is a relationship between a donor and a recipient of charity that cannot be defined within the confines of a Free Market Ideology, or even of capitalism in general. Profit-making individuals and corporations should not make incursions on that relationship but rather, we should all foster its purity and attempt to make it as streamlined and efficient as possible.

 

Free Market Ideology is a useful tool, but it is not all-encompassing and it is not perfect. Charity is one area to which it should not stray

I'm also currently listening to Waterloo Sunset by the Kinks

Gosford Park

The whodunit aspect of the film was the weakest element with Stephen Fry's cartoon character feeling completely out of place. It shows an ordinary period drama but from a different perspective. Now when watching some other period drama I'm going to be thinking what the servants are doing. There were a huge quantity of characters and remembering all their names was a struggle. Whilst some of the characters potential were only half realized the tone and and setting of the film were perfect. 

Aguirre: The Wrath of God

In an attempt to post more I have a notepad in which every film I watch I will write a side. This notepad is tiny so it won't take much effort and will allow me to write where ever I am. So for my first film 'Aguirre: The Wrath of God'

Aguirre: The Wrath of God

This is a hugely ambitious film but is put together in a very rough way usual to a Werner Herzog film. The contrast of huge budget and an artist with free reign is really odd. The freedom results in a genuinely unique vision but leaves the film with a few strange "mistakes". Klaus Kinski is a truly terrifying actor. The pace is very slow in the film but that isn't necessarily a bad thing more than just a choice from the director. Bleak indeed.

Akira Kurosawa

I started this post and then my computer spazzed and it was so frustrating I haven't posted anything in ages. So here we go, take two.

Ran is the last important film in Akira Kurosawa's career and also one of the greatest. It is an adaptation of Shakespeare's 'King Lear', a very significant choice. Kurosawa was pretty much ridiculed his entire life for being too Western by the Japanese public. They were going through a wee bit of an identity crisis after WWII because of the American occupation and expected the self indulgent conformity that Ozu provided. Now to deny the fact that Kurosawa was not western at all is to ignore the man himself, he admitted he had influences from Ford but so did the Western genre have influences from him. The western and the Samurai film are ironically similar with their themes of justice, honour and warfare.

Seven Samurai has been remade into a western so is perhaps the most ideal of his films to choose as an example. Kurosawa deliberately sets his characters up with western conventions; Katsushiro meets a girl, wins a war but then does not 'get the girl' because of his ties to the samurai. Kurosawa does something similar with Ran, he chooses a quintessentially western texts and modifies it to Feudal Japan. The film is made through it's distinctions not it's similarities. 

I'm off to write an essay about the homeric links between the Aeneid and the Illiad. -_-'

Inception

I'm a lazy bum I admit it so that's why I haven't been blogging regularly. Inception deserves to be an exception from my laziness.

I have seen Inception twice now to try grasp the complexities of the plot. Leaving the cinema upon first viewing I was in shock and awe, the greatest film ever, or so I thought. I said that I wouldn't rate it until I saw it a second time and truly understood it. I left the cinema the second time and was no less deterred from it's apparent greatness. Through a series of unfortunate events I was left having to take a 3 hour walk on my own and, I regret to say, this is where it started unravelling.

This is somewhat uncharacteristic because I scold people all the time for being pedants, nit pickers and shit heads but what I'm going to do is list all of the inconsistencies and plot holes which I discovered. I have already ravaged forums, interviews and blogs looking for answers for my questions but couldn't find any. Now, you might call me a hypocrite but you can see that Nolan is obsessed with the "tick-tock logistics" and that is the subject of the film (as opposed to the philosophical substance of dreams.) I have no qualms with him choosing that approach but if I doesn't add up it shouldn't exist.

1. Mal and Cobb have been stuck in Limbo for 50 years, you have seen them when they're elderly so we know people age (as well as Saito) but when they're on the train track about to leave Limbo they are young. Why?

2. Why is Saito so old in Limbo? He wasn't there for that long...

3. To leave limbo you have to realise you are in a dream, Saito did this by a totem, Mal did this through Inception. Why didn't they go the more direct route of Limbo brining their totems with them, seems a lot easier then the synchronised kicks and the time limit.

4. What is Limbo exactly? Mal and Cobb weren't in a sedated state but got there anyway by going to dream from a dream from a dream so really they should have just been able to kill themselves to wake up, they weren't "stuck" there.

5. They said Limbo was "pure, infinite subconscious" AND "nothing." Which? Cobb said "you can't control your subconscious" but they were able to build buildings from it, just like an architect. It was established that's not how it works.

6. Things from the dream above have a direct effect on the dreams on the second level as shown by the gravity shifts. Another example would be when Fischer is being resuscitated lightning appears in Limbo. So why then, when 0 gravity takes hold of level 2 (Hotel) it doesn't then go to level 3 (snow)?

7. They missed the first kick, before the van hits the water. Everyone but Arthur misses it because they are in level 3, Arthur feels the kick but doesn't ride it. Why?

8. They missed the first kick which was all synchronised through music, how would they synchronise the second kick? They wouldn't have know the exact time it would have taken between bridge and water and then been able to work out what note that would have been in the music.

9. This isn't really a plot hole but... I don't really see my subconscious in my dreams being a bunch of milling people, I want my subconscious to be the driving force. Pah.

10. Another thing that isn't really a plot hole just a gripe. The debate about the ending, is it a dream or not? The children are wearing the exact same clothes, the top doesn't fall. On the other hand there is a strong implication that he remembers how he got there, the immigration control the VERY undream-like lighting. I just want to say that it isn't Nolan's job to give fodder for BOTH sides, he just presents something and WE argue over it. That's just wrong.

I might update this post because I know I haven't written everything. My problem isn't that it tries to be a puzzle, Memento was a puzzle and I loved it, but I doesn't amount to anything. There is no question as to what is reality and what isn't, at least the Matrix gave a good attempt, there is not even a mention to it until the last few seconds (and a few hints for second time viewing.) Memento was a puzzle but for one, it made sense and secondly it allowed the audience to feel what it's like to have short-term memory loss, or as close as possible. I'm going to flat out say that Inception has nothing in it that resembles dreams. I love you Nolan but Tim Burton should have made this movie not you.

Spirited Away

A little bit of background goes a long way when looking at the legend that is Hayao Miyazaki. There are a few constants when looking through his collection of works; the themes of the nature, materialism and childhood. As I did with Sunshine I suppose I will just go through them individually.

Animation at the time of Spirited Away had a very clear distinction between east and west. Companies were no longer contented in the money they were earning from making films for children, the focus was to get a larger audience. Shrek was released roughly the same time and took what we considered to be a revolutionary step, it's split haired humour was purposely designed to have a hidden meaning that would fly over the heads of children. This had been the direction most western animated films have been taking since then, excluding the oh-so-fantastic Pixar.

This direction is one that is patronising to children and I consider not in good taste. Hayao Miyazaki and Pixar decide to tackle universal problems such as age (UP + Howl's Moving Castle) and the environment (Princess Mononoke + WALL-E) a sign of respect to people of all ages. A quote from Miyazaki states who his target demographic was 'For the people who used to be 10 years old, and the people who are going to be 10 years old.'

But ANYWAY, enough about childhood outside the film more about childhood INSIDE the film. Firstly, a popular technique in children films is in viewing the story from the perspective of a child. The beauty comes in the amount of faith Miyazaki puts in his character, it being the viewpoint of a 10 year old Japanese child coming from a very interesting period in Japanese history only adds to the interest.

The first scene is one of countless fairy-tales, a wrong turn into the realm of spirits. The first spiritual clues are the grinning shinto figures. To an elderly Japanese person these are benign, however, when seeing it through the eye's of Sen they are just creepy looking. We enter through a shinto gateway, pass through a dark tunnel, all the usual symbols for going into a different world. If you have seen many studio Ghibli films you'll note that they take place in very distinct locations; Kiki's Delivery Service being an idealised western city etc. etc. Japan is clearly the setting of Spirited Away. This has very strong cultural significance with the Japanese, as since the occupation of Japan by America it had undergone a certain 'cultural cleansing.' Younger generations were unfamiliar with their heritage and traditions, clearly symbolised by Sen's oblivion to her surroundings. The shinto spirits are viewed by her as being monsters, the bath house is seen as exotic wonder as opposed nostalgic beauty. Miyazaki's intended purpose was to revitalise and spark interest from the younger generations in Japan to the richness of their traditions. It is ironic that as a western viewer we are very much in the position of a Japanese child.

Jesus, that was a long paragraph.

We are ultimately in a child's world I think it would be difficult for a western creator to stick faithfully to that decision. Miyazaki's choice in doing so would be the main critical targets of many. By that I mean if you look at the story it is fragmented and incoherent (BUT NOT IN A BAD WAY.) Sen goes to the bathhouse, her parents are turned into pigs, she finds work, looses her name, befriends no face, has to save a stink spirit, no face runs rampant in the bath house, falls in love with Haku, befriends Yubaba's identical twin, has to stop No Face, goes to Zenibaba to save Haku from dying, Haku remembers his name, saves her parents, goes home. Do you get what I'm saying? I'm not even including the bird thing that follows her round or the gigantic baby/mouse. It is like a breathless child trying to retell a story. We are kept at Chihiro's level never knowing what comes next. Magic for the sake of magic, why does it have to have an explanation?

We are in a child's world so we have to follow a child's laws. Her parents were greedy so they turned into pigs, it's oh so reminiscent of Aesop's fables. A quote from spider-man a.k.a. Kamaji 'if you do not work you'll be turned into soot,' like something a parent would say to their children. Perhaps the biggest childhood conceit is when she falls in love with Haku a mystical power propels the plot onwards, 'story is a greater force than gravity.' The topsy-turvy logic follows closely, when Chihiro finds herself in this new world and repeats 'it's all a dream' she slowly fades away. I digress, to the next paragraph!

To keep us so attached to the character Miyazaki employs a technique of the quintessential anime face he has been trademarked for. Chihiro has an androgynous face which we are able to relate to. She is not particularly developed as a character but serves her purpose exquisitely. Remember, it is not a character study it's the basking in Japan's former glory.

Ok, so I was going to talk about the other two themes but this is going on WAY to long. Once again I apologise for typos and grammatical errors.

Japan

As so far as these blogs go, I pick a theme and then talk about it through a particular movie. i.e. talk about sci-fi through Sunshine, Westerns through A Few Dollars More and formulas through Seven. Now, if I said I had a speciality when it comes to film it would be Japanese cinema. So, I thought I might talk about Japan through a string of blogs.

The quintessential Japanese films would be the anime, Spirited Away in this case, the ultra-violent mind-fuck, Battle Royale, and the samurai film, Akira Kurosawa's masterpiece Ran. Should I do this introduction as a separate blog or part of the first film? Yeh, separate blog. Makes it look like I've done more...

Sunshine

Ok, so I was going to talk about Sunshine but it's difficult to do so without talking about the entirety of sci-fi. It would also be arrogant of me to presume that a task like that wouldn't be biting off more than I could chew. Fortunately, sci-fi is rather neatly categorized and sub-categorized making it slightly easier to deal with.

This paragraph is just to show roughly where Sunshine belongs in the spectrum of Sci-fi. Sci-fi is split between the dystopian future i.e. pick and aspect of society and multiply it by 100 (Children of Men = Infertility x 100.) On the other side you have 'The Mission," this is not actually exclusive to sci-fi so it becomes further divided into sub-categories, in this case "The Ship, The Crew and The Signal."

Sunshine is an incredible, tightly woven story with each of the three aspects lending to the overall effect of the film. The Mission is to save humanity, something that is seen constantly in film but this time we're not fighting against "a villain" but the ever present and all powerful sun, as shown quite nicely by it's dwarfing over the planet mercury. This is where the crew comes in, they are not super-humans but scientists, mere mortals. Danny Boyle cleverly doesn't give us a "main character" who we know can't die, he treats each crew member equally and is thus able to kill them off in any order he wants. The crew are immensely vulnerable and many begin to have a fanatical and religious devotion towards the sun.

The Ship is conveniently called Icarus as a reminder to us and the crew that there is a greater risk of failure than success. It is also the most visual of the three aspects. Ridley Scott's Nostromo created something that humanized the future, created a fetal-like claustrophobia and habilitated the plot. Boyle knows he can't trump Nostromo so settles in making a subtle homage. There are notable differences, predominantly the colour palette. When inside the ship there are very few yellows, oranges and reds I can only assume to add power to the sun. It also correlates with Boyle's attempts at when looking at the sun everything else is dark in comparison, mercury being a little black dot being the prime example.

The Signal is where it all goes wrong, so terribly wrong. Often used as a plot device to drive the story forward, Alien has an Alien sneak on board and havoc ensues, Solaris has man come in contact with some "greater spiritual being", Sunshine decides to combine the two but with only a third of the movie to come up with an explanation. I could spend ages complaining how shit the end was but I'm not going to because it shouldn't ruin the first two thirds. 

So... Sunshine earns it's use of light and dark. Light that will make you religious then die in a burning fire and so dark you become the loneliest person alive then freeze in minus two thousand degree temperatures. As done so effectively in Sci-fi everything is multiplied by a 100, a crew member's mistake results in the extinction of mankind and what other film makers use for dramatic effect becomes a driving force in the plot. The art is in not becoming melodramatic or self-important, Sunshine is tastefully slow paced and romantic relations are not exploited. Sunshine is pitch perfect and thus belongs on my top 10 list despite the ending.

Games Are Awesome?

So setting the scene... I was watching E3 streams and was appalled by the state of the games industry and felt compelled to make a blog. Half way through construction I realized I already had this discussion with a few of my friends when I explaining why I didn't want to seek a career in said field. So, here is the copied and pasted version of this Discussion. After copying and pasting everything, there is A LOT and it's hardly poetry but not going to condense... because I'm lazy.

Me: Ok i have several reasons: 

In my opinion the games industry is fucked over at the moment and I dont think it is going to get much better in the near future. The problem is with games is that they take so long to make and they cost so much so it is difficult to take any risks unless you get paid less but given more freedom. This however results in shitty indie games in which the vast majority are terrible.

For the developer there is massive dilemma. Either he chooses to make one of these shitty games but is given complete freedom OR he chooses to go into a massive corporation and is giving an incredibly restricted job i.e. modeling ass muscles or texturing walls. Neither of these options interest me.

More and more the game industry is becoming commercialized, with the influx of 'casual' gamers this is only going to get worse. Nintendo is a perfect example, Miyamoto turned from being a creative genius to a money whore. 

Games are also not taken at all seriously, there are VERY few games that I would consider art and even fewer made me feel any emotion. Fun is a thing that restricts games entirely . Instead of progression we are going to stagnate, clones are going to become more prominent i.e. Bayonetta, GoW 3, Dante's Inferno, Devil May Cry, Ninja Gaiden I can go on. 

If you can change my opinion I would be seriously indebted but at the moment film is just a much more of a mature medium.

Nina: You sound very bitter. Hopefully this will spiel will make sense to you and help you. It is late. I am tired and stressed. However, this was important enough that I felt like it warranted a very long, thought out reply. Caution: I will be very blunt in this. I don't have time to skirt around issues and think up euphemisms nowadays.

Ok, to start. "the games industry is fucked over at the moment and I don't think it is going to get much better in the near future"

All industries and fucked over and unfair. I don't think there's a single industry that isn't. That's life. Get used to it. If anything, the film industry, being the juggernaut that it is, is probably one of the most fucked up. In addition, the industry is only in its infancy. Movies started around the late 1800s/early 1900s, maybe even earlier. They've had more than a century to figure out how things should work. Comparatively, the video games industry is very young. It's barely had half a century from when it first started, if at that (depends on when you believe video games started). As my game design professor said, "There is no Citizen Kane of video games as of yet." But he also brought up the idea that should we even want such a thing? By having a "Citizen Kane" would this psychologically limit us in that everyone would strive for that idea of perfection and never innovate? But that is going into something entirely different and I am digressing from the topic.

Yes, games aren't going to get better "in the near future." However, if you cannot think long term, if you aren't inspired by the potential of everything that could be despite of all the problems, then this industry is not for you.

"The problem with games is that they take so long to make and they cost so much so it is difficult to take any risks [. . .] this [. . .] results in shitty indie games in which the vast majority are terrible."

And movies don't? Yes you could make a movie cheaply, but once again, then you're indie and the production quality wouldn't be that good, resulting in most people not wanting to see your movie. So we are back to square one. To realize your vision in anything, it's most likely going to take money and if you want to do your vision justice, if you care about it deeply (which you most certainly do as it is yours), it's probably going to take a lot of money.

The money problem is a major challenge that indie developers face. However, such challenges sometimes lead to innovation. You want result A, but only have tools B and C with which to make it. Result A requires tool A in order to work properly but you can't afford tool A. Your job now is to make it work. Innovate. Get creative. There is some way that it can work. Maybe for B and C you'll build a whole new tool, tool D, and it'll work even better than tool A

"Shitty indie games"

Shitty indie games? Boyo have you seen Flower, The Misadventures of PB Winterbottom, World of Goo, Braid, Machinarium, Fat Princess just to name a few? Just because your indie doesn't necessarily mean you're shitty. The stuff shown at indiecade seems really promising. Yes, a lot of indie games are shitty but frankly, how many shitty movies is the movie industry inundated with? Perhaps the movie industry seems to put out less shit just because of the sheer number of movies it puts out. Thus, percentage wise, the shitty-ness would be less than that of the games industry. 

"the games industry is becoming commercialized"

It's an industry that people have only recently realized can make a lot of money. Of course, it's going to become commercialized. Like any new stock that starts to do well, people are just going to pour their money into it and try and pump out as much money as they get. Publishers are usually the big issue in this. But they are publishers in everything: books, TV, movies, games, etc. Even as a movie director you would have to get your project green lighted by a major publisher. Publishers are going to know what currently sells. They're not ignorant of the current fads and obsessions. If your idea of what should be made doesn't agree with their idea of what should be made and you can't convince them that you're good idea is worth making, you can kiss that big, fat production budget good-bye. Then you become an indie director and make it. Thus, movies are just like any video game in the sense that you are also faced with the "massive dilemma" or either bowing to a superior or having a low budget and making a shitty production.

"with the influx of 'casual' gamers this is only going to get worse."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8ZVZRsy8N8

(By the way, this video is the STORY OF MY LIFE.)

Irrelevant for this issue except the part at around 5:20. The industry is booming and casual gaming is on the rise. However, I agree with Floyd in that casual games have their time and place. They are not necessarily a bad thing. Yes, many hard core gamers spurn the thought of this, but as Floyd says: "And with time many of [the casual gamers] may become curious enough to cross over and try their hand at a Halo match or something."

I am a testament to this statement. One of the very first games I remember playing is a PC Madeline game. A very girly game I can assure you. However, as time progressed, I became interested in other games. The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker was the one game that bridged the casual/hard core gap for me. Now, I'm person I am today. Blowing hundreds of dollars annually on video games and game paraphernalia. 

Also, casual games still allow for innovation and can be appealing to the hard core gamers as well. Take LittleBigPlanet. I would actually classify that as a casual game. It appeals to everyone regardless of age or gender. One can easily pick it up, learn the controls, play it for a bit, then drop it. If you think about it, all you do in that game is run, jump, and pull/push things. However, the way Media Molecule brought their world to life and their motto of "play, create, share" are amazing. It's basically modding brought to a bigger audience. They were able to infuse their game with the fun and innocence of childhood. It seems to remind a lot of people of their childhood and when they played with toys which is why I believe it appeals to so many.

"Miyamoto turned from a creative genius to a money whore"

I don't really follow specific developers so you're going to have to explain this to me. Why exactly do you think that Miyamoto is no longer the man he once was?

"there are VERY few games that I would consider art and even fewer made me feel any emotion"

Once again, this may be an issue that arises from the fact that video games are still very young (going back to the games industry Citizen Kane thing). They're getting better though. Look at Heavy Rain, LittleBigPlanet, Shadow of the Colossus, Ico, Psychonauts, Bioshock, Okami, Dragon Age, and Mass Effect. Admittedly, it's still hard to find a game with good gameplay, art, and story, but the potential that lies there is what personally attracts me to game design and development.

Here's another really interesting video to watch. Floyd explains it far better and quicker than I could. (Yes, I do love this man and would marry him in a heartbeat but I think he's already married)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jdG2LHair0

"Fun is a thing that restricts games entirely."

I don't agree with this statement, but before I comment more on it you'll have to clarify by what you mean. Give me some examples. More in depth than just naming games. Though going off the list you just have, there are also some really good games out there. I'm not going to list them all. And, again, how the movie industry any different? How many movies out there are just remakes, book to movie films, or have predictable storylines nowadays? The film industry's stagnating too. In the future, it may stagnate even more than games. People are already starting to talk about how games will overtake film and TV just like how film and TV took overtook radio.

A Conclusion (sorta)

The bottom line is this: very rarely will anyone start out in a lead position. A game designer is somewhat equivalent to a director's position. It's gonna take either time or huge sacrifices (and sometimes both) in order to prove yourself to either a company, or a team if you're indie, that your vision is something they want to create. You're not going into it for the money or the fame, you're going into the industry because you love it. With the reasons you have given me so far, I feel that some of the reasons is that you do not want to go into video games is because you are impatient and do not feel that the rewards for your hard work aren't worth it. Which then leads me to believe that you don't love video games. At least not as much as you should if you want to work in the industry. If you can't see yourself starting out working on Barbie Horse Adventures, if you can't see yourself throwing yourself at the seemingly insurmountable wall that is the money problem, then this career path is most likely not for you and I would quite honestly encourage you to get out while you're still young. 

I am now going to go on a bit of a tangent. Indulge me and read it. This has a point, I promise. So, take my current position for example, I know that I'm probably going to start in a low level job in a huge company. I'm just going to be a cog in the wheel. However, I also know that this is not where I'm going to stay for the rest of my life. I'm idealistic but also realistic. This job is a means to my ultimate end. I don't care how long it takes or what I have to sacrifice. One day, I am going to be in a position high enough so that it's /my/ ideas that I bring to life. I will forsake food, sleep, friends, maybe even family if it means that I can realize my dream. I understand that it's gonna take hard work and time. I'm freaked out by the fact that what I do now is going to have a heavy impact on my future. I'm daunted by the fact that I'm going to an art school to realize my dream (despite the fact that I can't draw) and that it is quite possible no one will take me seriously because I have a degree from an art school. However, there is little I will not do to realize my dream. Money is not an issue. I will find the money somehow. People far less competent than I have balanced full time school and work. If they can do it, so can I. I'll just commit seppuku in the process. I do not care who stands in my way or what my relationship to you is. If you stand in my way, I will /cut you down/. I have little doubt that I /will/ one day have enough freedom to create and breathe life into a world and characters all my own. 

Right now, I'm stressed and trying to balance my 3d modeling/animation class and my game design class (both of which are huge time sinks) with my other classes but in some fucked up way, I'm happy. I'm doing what I love and what I love pertains highly to games. I therefore realize that I /have/ to go into video games. It is no longer an issue of want, it is an issue of need. Succeed or die trying. Those are the stakes now. I highly believe that the only reason you don't achieve things is because you didn't want it enough. If you wanted it enough, you would have done anything to get it. You would have figured out some way to obtain it. There are no excuses. I want this badly enough. I will achieve this goal and I will go to hell and back to get it. Fuck anyone else who tells me I can't.

Now, if the above 2 paragraphs are how you feel about movies. Go for it. I'll expect to see your name in the theatres one day. Then I can tell people I knew you when you were but a teen. However, if that is not the case, then you should seriously reconsider your options. All of them. Not just video games and movies. You're still have some time seeing as you're still in high school but by the time you're in college I advise that you have a pretty good idea of what you want to do. Time is the only resource you will never get back. One of the things I severely regret is discovering what I wanted to do in life only after I finished high school. Only now do I have a clear vision of what I want. But I guess that is more than what most of my peers have.

Matty, I believe you are changing your mind for all the wrong reasons. The problems you see in the video game industry also exist in the movie industry but I do need clarification on some things you mean. But what do I know? Maybe you really do love the medium. From what you've told me so far though, it seems like you're just "falling back" on it in a sense. Honestly though if these problems are what originally drove you away, if they seem too daunting and the rewards not good enough, then leave. I don't mean to sound harsh, but if things as simple as this drove you away and you believed and/or did not want to try and overcome such obstacles, even should I convince you not to abandon video games, I don't know if you should come back to them. More than anything else: if you yourself don't believe you can do something, then you really won't be able to do it. Simple as that.

"Because the people who are crazy enough to believe they can change the world are the ones who actually do."

/endrant

Me: First of I'm just going to say that I agree with a lot of what you said, I still think that games are integrally flawed. I enjoy games for huge amounts of fun they provide for me but what truly fascinates me about them is their narrative potential. Here is the first dispute that I have. Compare Metal Gear Solid 4 and Shadow of the Colossus. We see two game’s attempts at a narrative display. Games, presently, due to their subsequent lack of understanding are looking towards film when trying to present the player (I don’t really know what to call them as they are doing more then passively viewing, interacting? Interactor? I dont know.) with a story, we see MSG with hour long cut scenes that use none of the tools that Games exclusively own, the story is no less spectacular and no less valid but it IS just film and I would rather just watch a film. It is in Shadow of Colossus, my favourite game, where we are presented with a much less intricate but much more moving story. Games have the ability to allow the player to have a genuine and active relationship with the characters in the story, Shadow of the Colossus picks a cipher character who we are never separated from. We discover at the same rate that he does and gradually, through actually living this persons life for a while inherit the developer’s desired emotions. When needing to view the story from another perspective we actually play as that character for a while. The only cutscene we see is to simply establish a story. Now for the bad news, Shadow of the Colossus is critically adored but there is no other example that has earned my love or even come close to it and here is when the bad news starts. 

You say that the film industry is fucked up? Once again I entirely agree but film as opposed games films are entirely aware of this fact and have dealt with it. Film has an obvious and self-aware division; the formulaic rom-coms and the high-budget action movies versus the avant-garde, the less mainstream perhaps the “indie” film. Games have no such distinction. Games unsuccessfully try to merge these two sides, so instead of rapid development you have clone games as previously discussed each differing from each other by a minute and barely noticeable innovation. Some of these sequels don’t even try to innovate at all and adopt the bigger, badder, better mentality which is only an evolution in terms of budget size. This division isn’t entirely absent however as you do get indie games but they are generally completely unappreciated or just flat out ignored. Psychonauts is an example of a game that was critically acclaimed but made the publishers bankrupt and unable to publish since. Films do not have this problem, there is an audience, a numerable and important one, that reduces the giant risk (as of the one of backing an indie game) to a minor gamble of backing an indie movie.

I would be glad to be proven wrong but I have never heard of an indie game ‘making it big’ this is because they are hindered by innumerable draw backs and they simply do not have an audience. Film have less of these drawbacks thusly making it much easier and definitely within grasp to achieve stardom. Take the hurt locker for example whose budget was perhaps 1/100 of that of Avatar or Up In The Air but still managed to win the Oscar. In all the examples you gave of Indie games each had stylish, beautiful and cleverly done visuals but when you compare it to FFXIII or GoW they are incomparable, the graphics are shit. A person who adores these games enough however can overlook this, and these people are the hard of the hardcore audience and simply but sadly don’t have the numbers to back or make a games like these profitable.

Ok, another point. It is undeniable that money is the foundation of both of these industries and a huge chunk of this is down to the technology. The very nature of the technology of game is a massive hinderance to it’s progression. Games have followed the advances in technology so closely that the two are inherently and irrevocably intertwined. The problem with this is that the Game industry has been struggling to establish itself as more than just a showcase for the current level of technology. It leaves everyone who is involved in the industry on incredibly slippery foundation. The students who want to make game have to learn an incredible quantity of technology which is a massive obstacle between them and what they want to create. It also makes it so that someone who wants to make a game has to be constantly updating and furthering themselves as opposed to refining their art. It is simple with film, the huge technological feats (digital technology) is simply something that allows for greater efficiency and ease of distribution and use. The camera has been her for centuries now and people instinctively know what to do with it, I can’t say the same about kizmet or maya. If a person wanted to they could simply go out and make a movie, what you learn in university is the art of film not how to use a camera. Look at Blair Witch and Y Tu Mama Tambien, these films are incredibly simplistic but no less incredible. So when you say there hasn’t been a Citizen Kane I don’t think there will be for a considerable amount of time as developers are still struggling with story itself. Games don’t have time for story so they simply use what film has already achieved. 

Blair Witch and Y Tu Mama Tambien are student projects, have you ever played a student project game? If you have then you know they are pretty awful, take Braid as an example you would think that it was pretty easy to make, contrary to this, it had a 4 year development cycle and cost $200,000. This a monstrous amount of time and money which could never be in the grasp of any student. This is why people don’t take on jobs that involve leadership in the game industry because you are holding a suicide bomb, you have to instead join a massive company doing a job that you hate. You say climb the ladder? It’s a loooong ladder.

Addressing your innovation point, no amount of innovation can surpass money and time barriers. Bear with me hear this is going to be a convoluted point but we have reached the stage where Indie games have the ideas and High-budget games have the graphics. Now don’t get me wrong graphics aren’t everything but games are a medium that relies almost entirely on the visuals. To try use an analogy, picture conceptual art. You are either looking at a pile of shit or some dirty clothes. Conceptual art however is simply art when the aesthetics of art is left behind, it is just the idea. Now for a casual gamer looking at an indie game it would be just the same, it is an idea without the visuals to back it up. A story cannot be told without visuals which I do truly regret. Another example going against your innovation argument is the conflict that is going on between Japanese and American games. Japanese games are those that when presented with a problem innovate. Americans tend to solve the problem through technological advances. Japanese games become stale and irritatingly strange, America’s games are ones that fall victim to all of the problems addressed in my previous technology paragraph.

You say that the casual audience can be good for games? You said that they might go from playing a ‘gate-way drug’ game to playing halo. Halo is NOT good for the gaming’s evolution, Juggernauts such as MW, Halo and WoW are the things that destroy any chance of progression. They are the symbols of all things money and therefore subject to thousands of clones, there will never come a time where something like SotC or Heavy Rain will ever become one of these juggernauts, the thought is inconceivable. What we need is a case of less is more. A devout group of hardcore gamers that actually made a difference to profits this will never come about however with the influx of the casual gamers. Little Big Planet was used as an example. Well, LBP is very fun but ultimately a little insubstantial, it has no story for one and is subject to a case of being incredibly well done but it stops at fun and never transcends into the realm of art. 

I do still love games however and will play them till I die. Games like Bioshock cleverly manipulates the game medium itself, have you noticed ‘would you kindly’ does instinctively make the interactor do exactly what the voice coming from the screen says? It questions the role of the player in the story. Heavy Rain is another example of the manipulation of story with the involvement of the player, how far would you go for love? I actually did come out of that game seriously considering the question. But games are going in the wrong direction and no single person, or any group of people will stop the one way train to apocalypse where we can set new foundations and start again. Sorry for being melodramatic :D games and movies FTW!

For a Few Dollars More

Going in to the film being a western virgin, excluding those that I watched when I was 5, I decided by the end of the film that I am going to buy and see all the westerns that are worth watching. I can only speak about the film with the impressions I got and cannot pretend to be an expert.

It is sad that the western genre has all but disappeared. It is a world so deeply ingrained in the public's consciousness, I felt seeing one for the first time a rich sense of tradition and unbreakable convention. I have however seen a lot of samurai films so I am familiar with this sort of thing. The duel is a perfect example, It seems obvious that one could easily cheat or unfairly win one by drawing the gun first or moving. Even when nobody is around the two duellers will see it fairly through to the end. This sense of honour and tradition is apparent throughout not only in fighting but the portrayal of the wild west itself.

This power of having a pre-made world given to the director for them to play with is enormous. Playing with expectations is a huge part of film but the western genre allows this without having to conform to said formula. And the world is not a boring one at that. I quickly got used to the fact that it is one ruled by avarice and greed where death is literally an inch away as shown by the quote 'Life has no value, but death sometimes has a price'. The protagonist is no exception, the man with no name is a lone gunslinger who kills people for money.

Sergio Leone's film is made purely for entertainment and that it is. It unleashed my inner 10 year old who wanted to play with guns and kill bandits (more so than any video game.) The characters are flat out cool. It's sweaty and fun. Maybe my experience with westerns will only get worse.

Se7en

I'm going to approach this rather casually as putting too much effort would be pointless considering my demographic is nobody.

Seven is a formula film at heart. We have all seen the story of the old cop and the rookie, so cleverly shown by William's clean room and David's messy one. Sure the image is hardly complex but it allows the movie to get into the swing of things without dwindling on things we're already very familiar with. 

This film is not a relationship piece, the relationship they form is endearing but not exactly subject of the film. This is why I love this movie. It takes a formula and through it we see the social commentary. This film is dark but enthralling at the same time. David Lynch's other film Fight Club was let off the collar, it had no boundary that a formula provided. This allowed Fight Club to take a more direct route towards the commentary but lost the conciseness that Seven provided.

Seven is a marvel to look at structurally, similar to the Godfather thinking about it. It seals itself off so that there are three characters, the ending is where all the characters fulfill their role (not only the role they are given by the writer but the role given by John Doe.) It is difficult to explain how well crafted this film is, it's entire contents are 7 deaths and we leave with no questions or untied strings in terms of plot but internally I'm still conflicted.

I'm going to stop soon but was just enjoying the possibility that John Doe was the good guy. It is repeated several times that the complete act will be talked about and remembered forever and truly they will be. Do we deserve to be punished?